Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at???

#1

They are looking at whether the administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated
intelligence information to mislead them and the public into going to war.

"Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) GTS> wrote

Quote:

Congress has decided to look into the information it was given prior to
approving a military action in Iraq.

Why do they have to review the nformation? They wre presentes the
information almost 3 years ago, and approved a military action based in
what they were given.

Now they say, maybe it was bad information.

Maybe it was.

Why didn't they investigate more thoroughy then? Why do they have to
re-open and review now? These people have staffs. They have aides. Thay
are almost all Lawyers, and SHOULD know how to verify information. Now
they want another look?

Hmmmm...could be we're comgin up for some re-elections, and since the
popular concensus among some voters is that this is a 'bad war' they need
to line themselves up with popular opinion?

They had the resorces then, they didn't use them. They did what was
popular then, they are doing what is popular now. It's called
Flip-flopping.

Any Congressperson that does not stay with his or her prior decision
should probably be replaced; do we really want people that stupid, that
had the resources and didn't use them in the first place making laws and
decisions for the rest of us?

#2

Quote:

The news media and Demorats are always on the same page....with the
same words.

That's because they are overwhelmingly a bunch of mindless puppets,
incapable of critical thought.

#3

I don't believe the Clinton administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated the
information. The information as you call it, given to the Clinton and Bush
administration and the Congress was culled by the CIA based on the type and
amount of banned WMDs listed by Iraq as being in their arsenal. The Current
administration and the Congress relied on that same information when the
Congress voted to authorize the current administration to go after Iraq for
violating the ceasefire agreement ending the first gulf war and for not
abiding by the various UN resolutions passed during Clintons and Bushs
tenure, as the Congress did when they authorized the Clinton administration
to go after Iraq in 1998. The only difference was Bush did what should have
done by Clinton five years sooner. If one would take the time to search
the Congressional Record they would discover there is no 'new' investigation
by the Senate, it has been ongoing by several and other committees of the
congress have already determined there was no effort by the Clinton or Bush
administrations to fudge the available evidence. Attempts to rewrite
history will not work on those that are informed, rewriting history works
only on the uninformed as apparently are you and several others in this NG.

mike hunt

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

They are looking at whether the administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated
intelligence information to mislead them and the public into going to war.

#4

Mike Hunter, 11/4/2005,11:21:56 AM, wrote:

Quote:

I don't believe the Clinton administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated
the information.

What was Sandy Berger stuffing down his pants when going through
Congressional records? Why is he not in prison today?

#5

The Republicans promised to do that but never did. THat is why the
Democrats pulled the stunt with the closed door session to get everyone's
attention. It was apparently successful.

"Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) GTS> wrote

Quote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:14:42 +0000, Art wrote:

They are looking at whether the administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated
intelligence information to mislead them and the public into going to
war.

Why now? Why not back when the info was first presented?

They had an opportunity to check the validity of facts presented. They
chose not to do so because it was the popular thing. Now the popular thing
is to be against the war, and they need to come up smelling like roses.

They didn't use the resources available then, and are having second
thoughts now.

"Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) GTS> wrote in message
news

an.2005.11.04.13.38.33.473402 (AT) ae86 (DOT) GTS...
Congress has decided to look into the information it was given prior to
approving a military action in Iraq.

Why do they have to review the nformation? They wre presentes the
information almost 3 years ago, and approved a military action based in
what they were given.

Now they say, maybe it was bad information.

Maybe it was.

Why didn't they investigate more thoroughy then? Why do they have to
re-open and review now? These people have staffs. They have aides. Thay
are almost all Lawyers, and SHOULD know how to verify information. Now
they want another look?

Hmmmm...could be we're comgin up for some re-elections, and since the
popular concensus among some voters is that this is a 'bad war' they
need
to line themselves up with popular opinion?

They had the resorces then, they didn't use them. They did what was
popular then, they are doing what is popular now. It's called
Flip-flopping.

Any Congressperson that does not stay with his or her prior decision
should probably be replaced; do we really want people that stupid, that
had the resources and didn't use them in the first place making laws and
decisions for the rest of us?

#6

He was smart and did not lie under oath or to federal prosecutor.

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk (AT) Florida (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On 04 Nov 2005 17:45:35 GMT, "badgolferman"
REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Mike Hunter, 11/4/2005,11:21:56 AM, wrote:

I don't believe the Clinton administration INTENTIONALLY manipulated
the information.

What was Sandy Berger stuffing down his pants when going through
Congressional records? Why is he not in prison today?

Sandy Burgler is a true traitor....and got away with it.

....looks like a lot of Dems got away with treason...

....including John F*ing Kerry....

--

Scott in Florida

#7

"Mark" <bogusmailmark (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

The news media and Demorats are always on the same page....with the
same words.

That's because they are overwhelmingly a bunch of mindless puppets,
incapable of critical thought.

Mindless? Why bring up Bush again.

#8

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

One thing Rush does is research the 'words' of the left.

Are you referring to the fat Oxycontin addict who's a role model for
the youths of America?

#9

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

On 6 Nov 2005 17:45:30 -0800, "Norm De Plume"

One thing Rush does is research the 'words' of the left.

Are you referring to the fat Oxycontin addict who's a role model for
the youths of America?

Nope...

I'm referring to Rush Limbaugh....the thorn in the side of all
Liberals...

I was thinking of a Rush Limbaugh who admitted to using Oxycontin and
whose housekeeper and the local prosecutor have him on tape arranging
for her to make illegal buys of the pills for him. Is your Rush
Limbaugh a different guy?

#10

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

On 6 Nov 2005 18:06:50 -0800, "Norm De Plume"

One thing Rush does is research the 'words' of the left.

Are you referring to the fat Oxycontin addict who's a role model for
the youths of America?

Nope...

I'm referring to Rush Limbaugh....the thorn in the side of all
Liberals...

I was thinking of a Rush Limbaugh who admitted to using Oxycontin and
whose housekeeper and the local prosecutor have him on tape arranging
for her to make illegal buys of the pills for him. Is your Rush
Limbaugh a different guy?

Sure is...

The one I'm thinking of is just a Lovable Little Fuzzball....that
drives the left bonkers...

So is your Rush Limbaugh a family man with kids who's stayed married to
only one woman?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at???

Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-04-2005 , 09:14 AM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-04-2005 , 10:37 AM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-04-2005 , 11:21 AM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-04-2005 , 12:45 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 06:13 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 06:14 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 06:15 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 08:45 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 09:06 PM

Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? - 11-06-2005 , 11:42 PM